Because a voter could cast only one vote for a particular candidate, the number of votes received by a candidate represents the exact number of persons who voted for him or her (and, typically. for 2 others), and that number, divided by the total voters (1,099), establishes the percent thereof who supported that candidate. That percentage is much greater than the percentage, based on the total votes (2,938), listed on the board’s "unofficial" scorecard – here are the significantly greater percentages of the actual voters who supported each candidate (ranked in order of support):
49.1% -- Spies
48.4% -- Cohen
41.0% -- Mitchell
37.2% -- Boda*
27.7% -- Dryden*
25.2% -- Ford
25.0% -- Dixon*
13.6% -- Taylor
designates one of the candidates who are supported substantially by a small group of "super-donors" – see our earlier post about that group: http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2011/02/who-are-these-super-donors-in.html
Thus, for example, the lead that Tim Spies has over Muir Boda in actual voter support is about 12%, rather than the much smaller lead suggested on the board’s scorecard (4.5%). It is possible, albeit unlikely, that all (100%) of the voters who support Boda also support Spies, but it is impossible that more than 76% of those who support Spies also support Boda. And it is also possible that none of those who voted for one also voted for the other. This same analysis could be done for any pair of the candidates.
And it is interesting to run the data for a hypothetical even result, in which each of the 8 candidates receives the same share of the total votes cast, or 367 votes, which would represent support by about one-third (33.3%) of the actual voters. Only 4 candidates – Spies, Cohen, Mitchell and Boda (in that order) -- exceeded the "average" level of support.
Obviously, Mr. Spies and Ms Cohen garnered the highest level of support, no matter how you do the numbers, by a comfortable margin over the next highest, Ms. Mitchell, who also did better than expected. The three candidates supported by super-donors – Boda, Dryden and Dixon – did not meet expectations, possibly because of their manifest landlord support.
No doubt, in response, SAPOA will be much more aggressive as the general election approaches, if its exploits in the past several City elections are a reliable predictor.
[this is from the link in this post]
ReplyDelete******
The candidates’ initial reporting for campaign financing has revealed a significant matter – a group of just 8 donors (counting joint donors as one) have provided a total in excess of $4,000 to Messrs. Boda, Dixon and Dryden. That’s about 40% of the total reported by all eight candidates. In the cases of Boda and Dryden, almost all of their funding has come from these super-donors, some of whom are from out-of-town and even out-of-state – here are the details:
Charlene Lococo, Berlin, MD - Dryden, Boda & Dixon – $200 each
Bret Hopkins, Fairfax Station, VA –Dryden, Boda & Dixon -- $150 each
Bryan and Harold Fox, Lexington, SC -- Dryden and Dixon -- $250 each
Paul and Sarah Allen, Lexington, SC -- Dryden and Dixon -- $250 each
Gabriel Investment Company, Salisbury, MD -- Dryden and Boda --$250 each
Lauren and Keith Fisher, Salisbury, MD -- Dryden and Boda --$250 each
Lynne Smith, Salisbury, MD -- Dryden and Boda -- $250 each
Susan and Arthur Spengler, Salisbury, MD -- Dryden and Boda --$250 each
And here is a comparison, by candidate, of all their funds received from large or small contributions:
Boda - $1,635 from 9 donors ($182 each)
Dixon - $1,850 from 8 donors ($231 each)
Dryden - $2,100 from 9 donors ($233 each)
Ford - $310 from 2 donors ($155 each)
Spies - $2,360 from 45 donors ($52 each)
Cohen – $2,155 from 49 donors ($44 each)
Mitchell and Taylor did not receive enough money to require disclosure.
It’s very obvious that anonymous special interests – probably including SAPOA – are funding Boda, Dixon and Dryden, whereas Terry Cohen and Tim Spies have much broader support, mostly from local residents who appreciate their civic involvement over the years. The other candidates were absent from Council meetings until very recently (can you say “Louise Smith?).
The absentee ballots were counted today Joe. Do you have a count on that?
ReplyDeleteIt can probably be assumed that Spies and Cohen will win the general election--though I know it's not safe to presume anything--so that SAPOA will lose any punch they might have had. The majority of the council will be Cohen/Campbell/Spies, who are in sync with each other; the third person elected in April may very well be on the same page as the above three. It's going to be a whole new ball game, with SAPOA not in play too much.
ReplyDeleteHow can Lynne Smith, who works for peanuts in Gary Chandler's rental office, afford to give $500 to Dryden and Boda, or anyone else, for that matter?
ReplyDeleteAnd Susan Spengler, who also gave $500 to Dryden and Boda, is Susan Chandler Spengler.
And Gabriel Investment Company is an unregistered business claiming its address to be in the Bill Martin Real Estate building on East Main.
You do the numbers and make the connections.
Verification word: exessess
I'm sure Gary gave Lynn and Susan the money for the donations as long as it was in their names. The Chandler family has skeletons in the closet. Ask anyone who has known them for more than twnty years. Gary is his Father's son. Identical!
ReplyDeleteJealousy! Spies, Cohen & Co can't get money from these sources.
ReplyDelete11:53
ReplyDeleteHas it escaped your attention that Dixon, Dryden, and Boda only account for 40% of campaign contributions? That leaves the other 60% for Mitchell, Cohen, Spies, and Ford (because Taylor didn't get any). The proportions of contributions per candidate are roughly the same. Why is it okay for the candidates you support to get charitable contributions, but not okay for the people you don't like?
"Logical",
ReplyDeleteThe reason it matters is that:
1. The $ is coming from out of state. Why would out of state people be interested in a local city council campaign?
2. Clearly, a low-paid secretary did not give $500 to candidates, so it shows an obvious level of dishonesty--would those candidates please like to explain whether they REALLY think the secretary gave them the money?
3. Mr. Boda is supposedly running on honesty and transparency. So will he denounce the practice of writing checks supposedly from a secretary when we all know it isn't true?
4. Will Mr. Boda explain how he was able to afford radio ads based on teh financial disbursement he filed?
I don't know why you think that the money coming from out of town is any more honest than the money coming from within the city. And so what if SAPOA supports the candidates they like? Is that illegal? I don't think so. So back up off em. Just because you want your team to win doesn't mean its okay for you to act like a total hypocrite in the process. You get your vote, they get theirs, now let them be for crying out loud. If everything turned out to be the conspiracy that you people seem to think it is, we'd all have to take the blue pill once a day to live here.
ReplyDelete6:31 Here is my logic. The problem is that SAPOA would like to establish their rental laws in the city where they DO NOT LIVE.
ReplyDeleteWE DO LIVE HERE AN HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER THEY THINK IS GOOD FOR THEIR BUSSINESS.
We just want a decent place to live. There are good landlords in the city and I support only them. You should see some of GNI (Gary's) rentals inside. I did. These are old houses and during winter everybody heats them up with hot plates, electric heaters etc. Ask the Fire DEpt how many fires are cause each winter by this. Do you think SAPOA landlords would like to be their own rentals' neighbors? Would you want to live close to such place?
If SAPOA wants to vote in the city they should move in to Salisbury and LIVE with decisions the Council makes for their "industry". And they could even run for office in the city. That simple!
SAPOA-rians are afraid to live in this wonderful city they've created. This is a city designated by SAPOA to be a low income rental city. Because they can! They will keep destroying this place as long as it will pay for their mansions so they can live in peace.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet they will complain about lack of jobs in Salisbury - yes, all those employers can not wait to move in and recruit us after they visit here and see this blight.
If you guys hate it in the city so much, and are that distressed about "blight," maybe you should cut your losses and move on out of it. That way you wouldn't have to spend so much time whining about landlords and the rest of us wouldn't have to listen to you whine about landlords. Salisbury would either deteriorate as you predict (or do just fine as I predict)and none of it would effect you, you could go on about your lives and never have to mention the words "slum" or "blight" again. I like this plan. Everybody wins.
ReplyDeleteYour landlordship is showing.
ReplyDelete9:38 the same goes for you. Instead of whining outside the city move in. After all it is a free country and you have a choice as well.
ReplyDeleteThe other option would be for you to buy property somwhere else. How would you like this? I like this plan even better.
I fail to see your 'logic' bwahahaha
ReplyDeleteNice "logic." Because some landlords want to ruin the city, those who want to save it should . . . move out? That makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that the SAPOA candidates stand zero chance of winning unless the landlords manipulate the process. We see them already trying to do so with these fake donations. Really, a secretary coughed up $500 for a city council election? Really? Still waiting for those candidates to explain that, by the way.
Number 1. I am not a landlord.
ReplyDeleteNumber 2. I do live in the city. Number 3. Nobody in their right mind wants to buy property here. Contrary to popular belief, the combination of rising crime rates in conjunction with national drops in property value, added to the fact that no house in the city has been built since roughly 1950 (and thus they all have massive utility bills) and that everybody in the neighborhood- if you represent them- is completely unfriendly, is what makes Salisbury the last place on earth that I would ever want to invest my money. Is there potential here? Sure there is, there's loads of it. But the residents of this city are so backward thinking that Salisbury will never reach it's full potential. You are holding us back...on purpose. Specifically you are clinging to the year- if I had to take a guess, 1965- when your neighborhoods were mostly small families. They were peaceful. They were quiet. They were also segregated but we aren't supposed to talk about that. The university was still too small to attract much attention. The infrastructure in these houses was still adequate, and didn't cause the utility bills to go through the roof. But times have changed and you need to move on. College kids are here. Renters are here. Landlords are here. That is Salisbury. Trying to squeeze this Salisbury into your vision of the white picket fences and backyard barbeques of yester-year isn't doing any of us any favors. It's creating divisiveness and turmoil. It's turning neighbor against neighbor. And it's preventing Salisbury from being the awesome, modern, tolerant town that it could be if you would just be a little bit nicer to everybody in it. But you won't. You never have been. I know, because I've lived here my whole life. So in answer to your question, will I move out of Salisbury? Yes, as soon as possible. Just like everybody else who could have improved this city, I will be crossing the bridge to invest my money in places that actually want it. Or maybe I'll establish a better relationship with my landlord, open up my own business, and in 2-5 years, run for public office where I will promptly pass as much pro-landlord legislation as possible just to get on your nerves. How about that plan? I think thats the one I like.